Broxton Bridge Plantation Thugs Shoot Drones, Lie to Police
- Thread starter Jagerbomb52
- Start date
Busdriver
Well-Known Member
One might say that's the " good ol' boy " network in process ..... I would have liked to see the officer start off with asking
Y'all Ain't From Around Here, Are Ya?
Y'all Ain't From Around Here, Are Ya?
LuvMyTJ
Admin
Shark is always in these types of confrontations. There was a big one near me about a year ago where it appeared the police were defending/protecting the farm that was being filmed. It is the most recent one in New York from Shark.
PRMath
Well-Known Member
Under United States v. Causby, folks have privacy on their public property up to 500ft.
United States v. Causby - Wikipedia.
I know there is some "controversy" over this according to FAA airspace and sUAS specifically...but a plane is not supposed to fly less than 500 ft over public property, so why should a drone be able too?
Regardless, according to Trump...if people are illegally shooting at law abiding Drones, drones have a legal right to defend themselves....We would have less people shooting at drones, if drones could defend themselves and shoot back...maybe we can get the NRA to help protect drones?
United States v. Causby - Wikipedia.
I know there is some "controversy" over this according to FAA airspace and sUAS specifically...but a plane is not supposed to fly less than 500 ft over public property, so why should a drone be able too?
Regardless, according to Trump...if people are illegally shooting at law abiding Drones, drones have a legal right to defend themselves....We would have less people shooting at drones, if drones could defend themselves and shoot back...maybe we can get the NRA to help protect drones?
The 500 foot rule applies to sparsely populated areas. Otherwise it is 1000 feet over populated areas. The law in NV says I can fly my UAV over populated areas as long as I stay 200 feet above the house's. It was interesting to read that in the old days a mans property rights reached to heaven and to hell.
Its interesting that the FAA allows NV to restrict airspace, a federal jurisdiction.
I don't think the FAA let NV do that I think NV took it upon themselves. NV also legalized Marijuana which is against federal jurisdiction and NV courts stopped the feds from prosecuting that old rancher Bundy hey it's the wild wild west!
LuvMyTJ
Admin
I believe this to be incorrect. Please show us where it states this in your link. If I recall the height, in that case, was 83 feet. And that only applies to that case. There is no real answer to this until it is properly decided by a court. Until then it is all a grey area. The 500 foot rule is for manned, fixed-wing aircraft.
LuvMyTJ
Admin
The rules in Nevada are complicated. Here is a link to a website I use for this type of info - Nevada Drone Laws (2017) -
from the wiki page..
United States v. Causby 328 U.S. 256 (1946) was a United States Supreme Court Decision related to ownership of airspace above private property. The Court held that title to land includes domain over the lower altitudes. ...
The findings were two-fold. The court rejected the United States Government's assertion to "possess" and "control" airspace down to ground level, and it nullified the doctrine that property extends indefinitely upward.
The United States Supreme Court rejected the government's claim to 'possess' the space down to ground level.[10] The Court held low altitude flights to be "a direct invasion of [the landowner's] domain",[11] and that a "servitude has been imposed upon the land" by the occupancy of the private space.[12]
Compensation was owed based on the occupancy of the property and not damage.
Im familiar with the heights in that case due to the aircraft at the time.
I dont mean to stir up a hornets nest. Many see Causby as granting ownership of airspace over their private land regardless of what is flying there. If a drone at 400 ft or under is a "nuisance" to someone over their private property, then I think there could be a legal issue under Causby. I have not seen any cases tried.
I always ask for permission to fly over private property if I need to. otherwise I stick to public lands and lots of lakes.
arto
United States v. Causby 328 U.S. 256 (1946) was a United States Supreme Court Decision related to ownership of airspace above private property. The Court held that title to land includes domain over the lower altitudes. ...
The findings were two-fold. The court rejected the United States Government's assertion to "possess" and "control" airspace down to ground level, and it nullified the doctrine that property extends indefinitely upward.
The United States Supreme Court rejected the government's claim to 'possess' the space down to ground level.[10] The Court held low altitude flights to be "a direct invasion of [the landowner's] domain",[11] and that a "servitude has been imposed upon the land" by the occupancy of the private space.[12]
Compensation was owed based on the occupancy of the property and not damage.
Im familiar with the heights in that case due to the aircraft at the time.
I dont mean to stir up a hornets nest. Many see Causby as granting ownership of airspace over their private land regardless of what is flying there. If a drone at 400 ft or under is a "nuisance" to someone over their private property, then I think there could be a legal issue under Causby. I have not seen any cases tried.
I always ask for permission to fly over private property if I need to. otherwise I stick to public lands and lots of lakes.
arto
LuvMyTJ
Admin
That wiki page does not mention your 500' comment. The general consensus is that you have control of the usable airspace above your property. So someone with a ten story building has more airspace at their disposal than a single story home.
again, I dont mean to muddy the waters or cause stir. just dont be surprised if your buzzing hunters in a field, trying to disrupt a hunt on their land if they dont take a potshot at your pumpkin...
"The navigable airspace which Congress has placed in the public domain is "airspace above the minimum safe altitudes of flight prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority." 49 U.S.C. § 180. If that agency prescribed 83 feet as the minimum safe altitude, then we would have presented the question of the validity of the regulation. But nothing of the sort has been done. The path of glide governs the method of operating -- of landing or taking off. The altitude required for that operation is not the minimum safe altitude of flight which is the downward reach of the navigable airspace. The minimum prescribed by the authority is 500 feet during the day and 1000 feet at night for air carriers (Civil Air Regulations, Pt. 61, §§ 61.7400, 61.7401, Code Fed.Reg.Cum.Supp., Tit. 14, ch. 1)"
From the full citation of Causby: United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)
"The navigable airspace which Congress has placed in the public domain is "airspace above the minimum safe altitudes of flight prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority." 49 U.S.C. § 180. If that agency prescribed 83 feet as the minimum safe altitude, then we would have presented the question of the validity of the regulation. But nothing of the sort has been done. The path of glide governs the method of operating -- of landing or taking off. The altitude required for that operation is not the minimum safe altitude of flight which is the downward reach of the navigable airspace. The minimum prescribed by the authority is 500 feet during the day and 1000 feet at night for air carriers (Civil Air Regulations, Pt. 61, §§ 61.7400, 61.7401, Code Fed.Reg.Cum.Supp., Tit. 14, ch. 1)"
From the full citation of Causby: United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)
HiloHawaiian
Well-Known Member
I can tell you from my FAA complaints & investigations, helicopters do not have to abide by any altitude limitation unless there is a specific rule in place for a given area to mandate minimum altitudes. And, the FAA makes the determination, not a state, county or the public. If you read the rules, there’s enough wiggle room to fly an A380 through....
Last edited:
Sundog775
Well-Known Member
The Nevada law being referenced above (NRS 493.103) is a trespass statute, has nothing to do with regulating FAA-controlled airspace, or whether you're flying over people or flying in an urban or rural area. The law states that you can be charged with trespassing if you fly less than 250' over private property (with some exceptions, for instance a land surveyor engaged in a surveying activity) if you have flown under 250' above that property on a previous occasion and the owner or occupant of the property has given you proper notification that you are trespassing. It's really not much different from normal trespass violations (in Nevada). You basically get one free pass, but if you are notified and you trespass again, you can be charged. Like any other trespass law, it's primarily a privacy issue, not an aircraft or airspace safety issue.
Maxheadspace
Well-Known Member
I agree, hunters/land owners aren't thinking about Causby when they start shooting at a drone. The Causby case has been debated since it came out of the Supreme Court. I know the FAA considers that if it's in the air, not attached to the ground, it's in their realm. Local governments can, and do, enact laws about what aircraft/drones do with respect to the ground, such as using a drone to peep into a window of a house, or use drones for surveillance purposes. One guy got fined not for flying his drone, but for harassing waterfowl with his drone. When police respond to a call about a drone, they will follow FAA guidance. Causby may influence an appellate judge if a drone incident were to go to court, but it's what the FAA tells the local officials that will matter for normal interactions between law enforcement, drone operators, and third parties. And the FAA's 500 foot guidance is based on safety, not privacy. The best bet is to follow the FAA.
As for the SHARK video, I have mixed emotions. Whereas SHARK's exposing this activity may be laudatory, the side effect is that it reinforces the negative stereotype that a lot of people have about drones, i.e., that people use drones to spy on them. Anyone who's complained to me about drones uses the same line, "are you spying on me?"
Last edited:
PRMath
Well-Known Member
Lawyer buddy says NEVER stand there pointing the weapon and firing. Never
Always Fire from a stealth location........
Always Fire from a stealth location........
Busdriver
Well-Known Member
Tommy Molnar
Well-Known Member
hey it's the wild wild west!
Not wild enough, in my opinion, but that's just me sayin' . . .
